Friday, October 31, 2008

I Overestimated My Fellow Americans.By J. D. Longstreet**************************Some of us have been screaming from the rooftops, for nearly 2 years now, that Mr. Obama is a socialist. Only now, just days before the election, are people beginning to take notice. Why? It is there for everyone but the deaf, dumb, and bind to see.

America has been slowly but surely headed toward a socialist government since FDR’s “New Deal.” In the 1960’s it was Lyndon Baines Johnson and the “Great Society”, and now, the crowning touch, Barack Hussein Obama and the… what…”Spread the Wealth Around” government?

The Left in America knows they have not succeeded in convincing us all to buy into their “Demand whatever the country can do for you” approach to government. You see, there are a heck of a lot of folks, like me, still roaming around, out here in the hinterlands of America, who see them for what they are, who recognize their scheme to lock down a democratic majority, forever, in Washington by making every single American dependent on the government for their very existence. Folks like me are a threat to them and their plans.

That is why Obama has run a stealth campaign. Think back. Obama has not told us a single thing, in concrete terms, he will do for you. Oh sure, he has given us great oratorical flourishes that spellbind those who wish to be spellbound. Watching an Obama event is much the same as watching the old medicine shows of the 1800’s. His snake oil is his promise of change, of hope, of (-----) whatever you wish to place in the blank.

People, like me, pay attention to what is going on about them. We are aware of what our government is doing. We feel that the government is answerable to us, as the voter, and, equally important, we also feel we have a responsibility to watch the government and make sure they stay within the guidelines of the constitution. That is the way a free people stay free. Never, ever, trust your government.

It is we the left is afraid of. The fact that we continue to agitate and call attention to Obama’s obvious socialism grinds on them every second of every day. They fear that our collective voices may eventually cut through their carefully constructed façade and actually draw your attention to every thing that is wrong with the fine print in the Obama promise. First and foremost where is the money going to come from to finance Obama’s expanded government? Secondly, who is going to protect us from all this nations enemies now salivating at the expectation that such a weakling as Obama will assume the office of Commander-in-Chief of the US military? Apparently, everyone already knows that no amount of talking, and jawboning, with the Islamofacists, with Russia, with North Korea, with Iraq, with Iran, with Afghanistan, with Venezuela, and the host of nameless enemies we face daily will do any good, at all. Everyone, that is, but Obama. They look on, as Americans flock after this empty suit, in disbelief at their good fortune. They are ecstatic that America is about to be handed to them on a silver platter.

Our forefathers must be spinning in their graves. The blood, sweat, tears, and providential intervention they, and those who followed them, spent in building a nation unlike any on the earth is all for naught. For if the people have no more love of their country, no more pride in who they are as Americans, no more belief in themselves than those who follow Obama, then, I must tell you, we don’t deserve the country they gave us.

It would seem that I have overestimated the intelligence of the American people. It would seem that I have overestimated my fellow Americans’ love for freedom. My error, apparently, was in believing that a people grown from the stock of patriots who fought kings and world superpowers for their freedom, and created a country in which the citizens were limited only by their own imaginations and ambitions would naturally want to preserve this precious land and all the freedom if offers. My mistake. It is a mistake I will not make again.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

There Is No UNITED States!By J. D. Longstreet******************************

There is a thread of fear running through the right side of the political spectrum in America. It is so real you can taste it. You can see it in the eyes of conservatives. You can hear it in their voices and you can even physically hear it when it is whispered into your ear. I will quickly add… it is fear mixed with resignation. Conservatives speak of it only in whispers. The left doesn’t speak of it at all because they are completely clueless about it.

Our fellow Americans, (on the left side of the American political spectrum) have mistakenly read the Right’s current state of mind as “fear of losing the election.” They could not be more wrong. It is not fear of losing the election. It is, however, fear of losing our country and the growing resignation that It is already too late to stop the sprint toward an inevitable conflict between citizens of what used to be the greatest country on the planet.

Yes, this IS a horrible thing to contemplate. Our forefathers in 1776 didn’t want it. Our ancestors in 1861 didn’t want it and we don’t want it. Nevertheless, the threat is there, standing just out of the light… but… just barely inside the shadows of our consciousness. The threat is visible to those who WANT to see it. The old expression “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” certainly applies to any who will not see that America is headed toward an internal conflict unlike anything this nation has seen since the 19th century.

For decades now a wedge has been driven deeper and deeper through the heart of what was a United America. We are no longer united. The UNITED states do not exist… except in poetry, verse, song, creeds, pledges, and in the imagination of those people who inhabit a “dream world” far above the plain upon which you and I dwell.

In reality, Americans are split asunder… cleft in twain by the cleaver of socialism. The election of a socialist President will complete the great divide of America and render us truly TWO nations. No hope for unity will exist. We will be constantly at each other’s throats, constantly in over-heated debate scratching and clawing at each other until the inevitable happens.

I’m over reacting… right? You’d better hope so! Just to reassure yourselves that I am a nut, check your encyclopedia for the history of this nation from about 1820 through 1865… then tell me you do not see the parallels. You see, for those of us who have paid more than passing attention to the actual history of this country, what is happening today in America is akin to the replay of a very old movie. A story that does not have a happy ending, but instead, flashes, “to be continued” at the end of the last reel.

If you have been harboring thoughts that the American Left and the American Right will ever be able to reconcile and become one vast, single, goal-oriented electorate, allow me to disabuse you of that hallucinatory conception. No, the two are so totally different in their philosophies of life and politics… and even religion, that there is absolutely no hope of ever putting aside those differences and “coming together”. It just isn’t going to happen. The divide grows wider every day.

There was a time when I felt that I would not live to see the next civil war in America but I must say that at the speed comity is dissolving in American I may yet live to see the opening volleys.

The question is… how much longer will the Right restrain itself? The socialist government, we are likely to have after the election, may snap the leash.

The Right’s patience is nearly spent. This very election could well be the last election held under the false claim implied by the current name of the country, “The United States of America.” We are decidedly split into two camps. The socialists are on the left, and on the right, those who want to preserve democracy. The line has been drawn.

Let’s face it: The Left covets a socialist regime in America and they will stop at nothing, as we now know, to get it. The right wants to save the country and the constitution The Founders of this country gave us. To the left, the constitution is simply an impediment. It is in their way and they are forever looking for ways around it. Their henchmen on the Supreme Court find all sorts of things in the constitution that aren’t there. They claim it is a “living document” which it isn’t. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution, was intended to restrain the federal government’s power. Unrestrained government is, for all intents and purposes, the creed of the political Left. Many on the Right fear that in the event of a future national emergency a leftists/socialist government might find it “necessary” to suspend the constitution and, possibly, national elections. There goes democracy.

I voted earlier this week. I voted for a true conservative for President. If this is to be the last election I take part in I wanted to mark my ballot in support of the idea of a democratic representative republic, the kind of government our forefathers gave us. As I stood there, with the ballot in my hands, I had a choice between Karl Marx’s brand of government or that of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and the remainder of that cadre of men who put everything they had, including their very lives, on the line to create this government. I knew I could not sleep at night if I did not support the America for which so many Americans have laid down their lives since 1776.

Crunch time is coming. The Media is telling us that the sale of firearms is at an historical high in this country. I warned of this a few weeks ago. This election will decide if we stay free a few more years, or if we begin the descent into anarchy. I’m afraid it is too much to hope for “UNITED” any longer.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

In the 1980s I found myself traveling all over the United States in the employ of a corporation’s quarterly newsletter. I visited many cities and places, discovering the unfailing courtesy and good will of Americans everywhere I went. One of my favorite places was San Francisco. It is picturesque, sits beside a bay spanned by a marvel of engineering, and has great restaurants, hotels, and other attributes.

San Francisco is now the epicenter of spectacularly stupid and just plain bad ideas. Being stupid isn’t a crime, but enacting stupid ideas into law comes close to being a definition of criminal stupidity.

This is a city that has been at the forefront of gay marriage. Why anyone other than a homosexual would think there was any sense in two people of the same sex constituting a “marriage” defies the laws of nature. Webster’s dictionary defines marriage as “The legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.” But not in San Francisco. The rest of the citizens of California have made it abundantly clear they oppose same-sex marriage.

On November 4, in addition to voting for the president and other legislators, the citizens of San Francisco will be asked to vote on Proposition H, otherwise known as the “San Francisco Clean Energy Act.”

It would amend the city and county charter “to require the city to transition from fossil fuels to clean, non-nuclear, sustainable energy production at affordable rates.” With this vote, if successful, the city will abandon the use of any energy afforded by coal, natural gas, and, as noted, nuclear power.

Electricity is measured in kilowatts-hours. America’s 104 commercial nuclear power reactors now provide about 20% of its electricity. More than 50% is produced primarily by 400-plus coal-fired “fossil fuel” producers of electricity, providing more than 2,000 billion kilowatt-hours of reliable energy. Hydroelectric and gas-powered plants constitute the rest of the mix.

Solar and wind power constitute about 1% of the electrical energy produced from these two inefficient, impractical, and spectacularly idiotic sources of power.

What the citizens of San Francisco and, for that matter, the rest of the nation, don’t understand is that even in the best locations, wind turbines produce power only about one third of the time. When they cease to produce sufficient electrical power, a back-up coal-fired or nuclear plant has to be in place to meet the immediate needs of energy consumers. Comparably, solar power depends on the sun shining. Occasionally clouds obscure the sun. At night, it is shining somewhere else on Earth.

Proposition H states that, “Nuclear (power) is prohibited from being included in the definition of clean energy.” Moreover, solar and wind power will be mandated to produce “at least 107 megawatts” by 2012, and 75% of San Francisco’s electrical power by 2030.

Who supports Proposition H? They include the Sierra Club, the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, and the San Francisco Democrat Party. I hope they get used to working by candle light if the measure passes. For all those other things that require reliable electrical power, they should plan on finding some means to keep them going other than the electrical socket in the wall.

The advocates of this supreme act of madness had the audacity of promoting it by asking, “If you and five friends could save the world, would you do it? If San Francisco voters pass Prop H for a 100% clean energy future, we could save the world.” The justification for this is, of course, “global warming”; something that is not happening.

If Proposition H passes, one assumes that views of the city will be obscured by miles and miles of wind turbines and that the drive into the city will include miles and miles of solar panels lining the highways. I don’t plan on visiting in the future.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

America Does Not Need A Weak, Timid, PresidentJ. D. Longstreet**********************

I came across something President Dwight Eisenhower said a few decades back. He said: "History does not entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." When Ike said it… it was profound. It is even more profound, if that is possible, today.

Ike was, of course, correct. If history teaches us anything it is that if a nation is to remain free that nation must remain strong and, equally important, that nation cannot be timid about using it’s strength in defense of freedom, it’s own as well as the freedom of others.

Today we find ourselves on the brink of the election of a new President. A man, who will, under our law, become the Commander in Chief of all the US military forces. Already those forces are at war, openly, overtly, in two nations in the Middle East and in sundry other nations, around the globe, that only those in positions of high authority in our military and our government know about.

Someone once said: “Freedom is not free.” No truer statement has ever been made. We don’t know whom to credit for those words of wisdom, but whoever said it was absolutely correct. There is a cost. Usually, the cost is paid in blood.

These are the words of one of the men running for the high office of President of the US and Commander in Chief of our military forces: "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending ... I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal: I will not develop nuclear weapons.” Those are the words of Mr. Barrack Obama, democratic Candidate for President. You can watch the video here:

Before proceeding I would refer you all the way back to the quote by President Eisenhower: "History does not entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid.” What immediately leaps off the page when reading Mr. Obama’s words are timidity and weakness.

It is frightening for those of us who were born before the Second World War and have lived the history of this nation through all the wars we have been involved in since. We know the danger, we know the cost, and we know the lengths to which a nation must sometimes go to insure the safety of its citizens. We know the horror of killing hundreds of thousands of our enemy in a single hour with a single blow. It is a measure of the price we pay for our freedom. We also know that had we been timid, had we been weak of fortitude or military might, we would not be free people today.

Allow me, please, to pass on the words of John Stewart Mill: “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

I would remind you that TWO wars are raging even as you read this. Not only is Mr. Obama assuring us he will order our troops off the battlefield and cede the war to the enemy, he is said to be considering reducing the military budget by 25%. If anything the size of the US military should be doubled and billions more spent in new equipment, new weapons, and new weapons systems. Just a few days ago Mr. Obama’s own vice presidential candidate assured us we could expect to be hit by our enemies within six months of Mr. Obama’s taking office. I believe him. Except, I think we will be hit sooner, much sooner.

Mr. Obama has missed making a connection with what the people of America want with our military in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Yes, Americans want their sons and daughters home. But they want them to come home victorious, having won the war; with their heads held high as the heroes we know them to be.

Mr. Obama should heed the words of Earnest Hemmingway: “Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.”

As we are mere days from Election Day, I fear for my country. I fear that Mr. Obama may indeed win and become my President. I will not rest easy a single night he occupies the Oval Office.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Once upon a time in a land far, far, away… illegal Immigration was a serious problem and the legal citizens of that land were up in arms about it. Then the issue disappeared. What happened? Methinks the media happened.

Have you wondered why Illegal immigration dropped from the radar screens of the media during the presidential campaign? I have. I suspect many of you have, as well.

Where did it go? The illegal aliens are still with us. Some estimates range as high as 20 million illegals here now. Even more illegal immigrants live and work among us every day in the US. We still have a border so wide open that it begs citizens of other countries to steal across it and take up residence in this country. As a result, they are still coming, by day and by night.

Some recent reports in the press indicate that since our financial crisis arose a huge number of illegals have returned to their hones. Let me ask you…doesn’t that validate the argument many of us made that the illegals are not here to become citizens of this great country? We have been saying, all along, they are here for the money. Now that the money has tightened up, and the job market has shrunk, they’re headed back home.

But why aren’t the two candidates for president talking about it? It is my opinion that there is no meaningful difference between the stances on illegal immigration of the two men running for President of the US.

If the illegal immigration thing ever does bubble to the top of the discussion between the two men the American voter is not going to like what he hears.

For Instance: Remember that John McCain co-sponsored the Senate immigration bill that would have legalized millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. and McCain still supports what he calls a "sensible" guest-worker program for workers who are in the country without legal documentation. Once the heat was turned up on the campaign trail he called for strengthening penalties for those who hire undocumented immigrants.

If we go back and look at McCain’s record in the Senate, on illegal Immigration, what we find is very troubling. John McCain has voted in the past to extend social security benefits to illegals who have broken into our country, taken jobs from American citizens, drained the treasuries of our states and local governments by running up welfare costs, overloaded our schools while forcing the local taxpayers to fork over the money to pay for it. Those same illegals have devastated our hospitals, especially the emergency departments, through non-payment of hospital bills, and they have practically crushed our courts and law enforcement organizations with criminal conduct.

On the other hand, Obama has voted not to cut off funds to those "sanctuary cities," and he voted for the Senate immigration overhaul bill. You may recall that bill was supposed to create stronger border controls, but, when you look closely, you find the bill would actually expand the guest-worker program and, over time, legalize millions of undocumented, or illegal immigrant workers, already in the country today. Obama has also sponsored a bill, which would allow states to provide in-state tuition for illegal aliens and he even supports giving driver licenses to illegal aliens.

But we aren’t hearing about this today. Why is that? Could it be because neither side wants it brought up? The media, so in the tank for Obama, knows that if they bring it up in relation to John McCain, it opens the door on Obama’s stance on illegal immigration. In other words, you can’t talk about one without talking about the other because there is just not that much difference between them on Illegal Immigration.

So… where does that leave the voter. I’m beginning to think the voter is complicit in all this. There is just no way the American voter can NOT know where these two men stand on illegal immigration. That said, why are so many voters going to vote for a candidate they do not agree with on illegal immigration? Because they feel they have no choice. I suspect the voters in both camps believe they are down to a choice between the lesser of two evils… again. I have to tell you… this is no way to run a country.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

(Note from the editor: This piece was written and published just over a year ago. With the elction only days away, I thought it might serve as food for thought as we take longer and deeper looks at the two candidates for the hightes office in the land. Enjoy.)

Some time ago, I read an article by a liberal lady columnist who writes for the NYT. Besides the bitterness dripping, like hydrochloric acid, from the paragraphs of her tome, I saw something I had thought of before and stuffed back into the darken recesses of my mind only to bring it out when a situation warranted it.

One can only be stricken with the huge, the gigantic, and the monstrous proportion of the naiveté of the left. They do not live in the same world or on the same plain as the remainder of us humans. I think it is genetic. Maybe someday science can isolate the “liberal gene”

For Instance, this writer was droning on about the war and how ridiculous is was to go to war and if we’d behave ourselves and try to understand those who dislike us so much there would be less hate in the world, etc, etc, etc. It was the usual drivel from the Left.

As I was reading this woman’s rantings, and stifling a belly laugh, I remembered a telling situation, which arose during the reign of the last liberal in the White House. I’ll bet you remember it, too.

During the Clinton Administration (I use the term “administration” loosely) remember the sudden increase in the number of Militia units all over the US? Remember? Men who banded together to train as paramilitary units? Remember the attacks upon them by the MSM as a bunch of right-wing nut cases? Sure you do. It was all over TV… every evening.

Now, ask yourselves… where are all those militia units now that we have a ”moderate” President in the Whitehouse? Huh?

My state had a number of armed militia units operating here during the Clinton Administration.

Do you wonder why they only seem to appear when there is a liberal President in the White House and liberals control the Congress? Well, you should. The reason they exist is tied directly to the expectations the people of this country have about a Liberal Administration.

Common folk, you see, are savvy. They understand that Liberals have neither a real concept of military force nor do they understand the application of that military force. Therefore, they have no concept of national defense… in so far as the use of military force to protect this nation’s citizens is concerned.

Look, when a liberal President is in office, the common US citizen understands it is “everyman for himself.” We know the government cannot be relied upon to protect the nation so, US citizens take it upon themselves to do the government’s job.

And that is where the Second Amendment to the US Constitution comes in. That is one of the reasons The Founders put it in the constitution in the first place. The US citizenry is the best-armed citizenry in the world. Any outside attacking force will be met with a standing army of citizen soldiers the likes of which the world has never seen.

Of course, the other reason, The Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution, was to insure the citizens could protect themselves from the federal government! Actually, that was the primary reason.

So, with the next Presidential election just days away, we should consider this as we study the candidates for that office. If the US elects another liberal President, militia units will pop up, seemingly overnight, sort of like mushrooms after a long wet spell. Adding urgency to their appearance is the fact that the US is already in a struggle with Islamic terrorists for its freedom even now.

I don’t believe this will come as a blinding light of epiphany to any of my readers, but I thought it was worthy of consideration, anyway!

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Nearly every sentient individual in the United States is arriving at the conclusion that Global Warming is a crock. (Some sooner than others.) Millions of Americans have reached this conclusion, already, and it just irks the living daylights out of the Socialist Left.

When you place environmentalism along side Socialism, and consider them, they are so much alike it is frightening. Both want to control society, especially a capitalist society. Socialism, it would seem, has a new home… the environmental movement.

REAL scientist will tell you the climate is warming, slightly, simply because the sun is warming. Whoops, there goes the global warming hoax.

The Kyoto Treaty would have creamed the economy of the US. Why, even Bill Clinton knew that. The Congress had the good sense to turn it down, flat…even while Clinton was still in the oval office.

Now, if you know anything, at all, about running a business, you know the cost of doing business is passed on to the consumers of the products that business produces.

So, when the “Greenies” scream that Big Business will not pay the price to upgrade their equipment to meet the extremely high standards for clean air they endorse, just know that that claim is a crock, too. If you know business, you know business will not bear that cost. The consumers will. When the consumer refuses to pay that increased cost, production is cut back. When production is cut back, jobs are cut back. It is a vicious cycle and, Dear Reader; it is a cycle that would take us back to the Great Depression in just a few short years.

In the past few weeks we have seen evidence of just how fragile the economy really is. If the “Greenies” had the sense God gave a gnat, they’d know their demands would crash the US economy… unless, of course, that is exactly what they want.

So, look again at the environmentalist movement and compare it with the Socialists. Then decide for yourself if you really want to support a movement bent on the destruction of he US.

It would be near impossible to decide which is the more dangerous to the US… Environmentalism, or Islamofacism. Both, it would seem, want our destruction.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Democrats Plan Censorship With Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine!By J. D. Longstreet******************************We warned you the Democrat/Socialists would do this and they are currently preparing to do just that. We warned you the democrats are all about raw power. The assertion of their tyranny by any means possible. The Fairness Doctrine is censorship, plain and simple. And, indications are that they’re going to pass it, in the House and Senate, if Obama is elected and he WILL sign it into law!

Yes, a few months ago, Obama said he would not re-impose the so-called Fairness Doctrine, but… do you want to hang your hat on that? I mean, when the Democratic Party’s leaders are hell bent on squelching conservative talk radio can you rely on a President Obama having the spine to deny them that? I don’t think so. If a bill reaches his desk, ready for his signature, he will be reminded of the support those same leaders gave him in his campaign for the presidency, and he’ll sign it. Bet on it.

As a money making enterprise, on broadcast stations, liberal talk radio sucks. Listeners turn away in droves and stations carrying those programs cannot get advertisers because advertisers spend their money where there are listeners! They must… if their ad campaign is to be successful. With the Fairness Doctrine, a radio station and/or TV station would be bound, by law, to broadcast a liberal talk radio show for every conservative talk radio show. What that means in “money talk” is… radios stations will reduce the number of conservative programs in order to reduce the number of liberal programs to avoid losing money. It’s as simple as that. After all, they are in business to make money for their stockholders. If the stations find they must dump all political programming… they will do it, just as they did before the Reagan administration rolled back the original Fairness Doctrine.

According to an article on Front Page Magazine the Democrats are considering other ways to get the same effect as the Fairness Doctrine without having to wage the war with conservatives that is sure to come if they attempt the re-instatement of that law. You can read that article by Brian C. Anderson at:

What it does, in effect, is bar the Congress from ever reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But the Speaker of the US House of Representatives will not allow an up or down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act. If it isn’t enacted, and Obama is elected, back comes the Fairness Doctrine.

If you are a blogger or a regular user of the Internet you must be concerned over this because sooner or later something of the same sort is bound to hit the Internet. You can bet it will be aimed at opinion sites such as this very site.

The question that worries Internet users, bloggers especially, is whether all network content can be reached equally, or will some sites be more difficult to get to than others? This is a very real concern. Don’t think it can’t happen.

There’s an article by Lance Fairchok at the American Thinker dated July 8th, 2008 entitled: “Stealing Freedom: Democrat 'Media Reform”. We recommend you read it if there is any doubt in your mind about the Fairness Doctrine. You’ll find it at:

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Somewhere, sometime, somehow, somebody began the awful accusation that not voting for Obama is an act of racism. Now, we like to think of this site as “Family Oriented” so I cannot use the language I’d like to use to describe my disgust with anyone who would make such a statement.

I’M NOT VOTING FOR Obama and it has nothing to do with his race. It has everything to do with my personal belief, and the conclusion I reached after doing research into the man’s qualifications for the office, and his past record, and… the fact that, in my opinion, he is offering absolutely nothing but more trouble for America.

Look, I’m a Southern American. Many of my fellow Southern Americans have harkened back to their ancestral lineage and are now referring to themselves as “Confederate Americans” . There is even a movement afoot to have “Confederate Americans” declared a protected minority by the US Government. I kid you not! I’ve got the paper somewhere in my office. I think there is at least one copy in my briefcase.

Anyway, before I get to far a field here, being referred to as racists, just because one’s ancestry is “Southern American”, is old hat to us. Now, I’d LIKE to tell you that it doesn’t hurt. But, I’d be lying. It does hurt. If you doubt me, those of you who do not plan to vote for Obama, and have made your decision known publicly, and found that you have been called a racist… be honest, and admit that way down deep inside, where YOU live, you feel the hurt that comes from being referred to as one of the lowest dregs of any society.

Southern Americans have carried the blame for the sins of ALL of AMERICA for the awful practice of enslaving our fellowman. The entire country did it… yet we are the nation’s scapegoat for all the wrong things done under that terrible system.

So, now we come to a showdown between a white candidate and a half white candidate for the office of President of the United States. Support for the two candidates is much closer than those the polling numbers would lead us to believe. People who study these things tell us that Obama will need at least a ten-point lead in the polls to win. Two weeks out from Election Day and he doesn’t have that ten-point lead.

Many feel the polls are being skewed because Americans polled do not wish to be thought of as racist if they honestly report to the pollsters that they do not intend to vote for Obama… so they lie and indicate that they WILL support Obama on Election Day.

I am reading reports in the blogoshere about police departments and sheriff departments and even the National Guard, in some states, gearing up for riots on election night and for a few days afterwards if Obama loses his bid for the presidency. There are reports of gangland plans to assault law enforcement officers if Obama wins. How much of all these rumors is correct, or how little, is anybody’s guess. But, in my opinion, we American citizens would be wise to plan for the worse on Election Day night and be prepared for “civil disobedience” in our neighborhoods. I intend to be ready should such a thing occur in my community. (I happen to live in a majority “minority precinct”.)

Jacob Weisberg has written an article over at Slate titled: “If Obama Loses”… subtitled: “Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him”. You’ll find it at:

In my opinion, anyone who ever thought that an Obama presidency would rid America of racism must be from some planet far outside our universe. See, a racist has been redefined to mean anyone not agreeing with the Democratic Party’s platform and anyone not voting for Obama. They apparently thought it was a smart move. It was not. In fact, it shows every indication of blowing up in their faces. I predict they will rue the day they brought racism into the campaign for President of the United States.

Those of you who accuse those of us who have no intention of supporting Obama of racism have done yourselves immeasurable harm. It will not be easily forgotten, and frankly, I suspect it will be used against you and your candidates for many decades to come. You have needlessly insulted many millions of Americans who have based their decision to not vote for Obama on well thought out, well reasoned, conclusions gained after looking carefully at his naïve approach to foreign affairs, America’s place in the world, the redistribution of America’s wealth, and the undiluted socialism which he promises to use to replace America’s capitalist system that has served us well, and shot us to the top of the heap of all the nations on the globe, and kept us there even when times got tough.

No, I’m not supporting Obama because of the color of his skin. I’m not supporting Obama because I have a fundamental, and absolute, disagreement with his philosophy of government, politics, religion, and what I feel is his disconnect with the idea that is America. But, if you feel that you cannot accept an honest appraisal of candidate Obama by so many millions of Americans and you feel you must denigrate our decision by charging us with the vileness of racism, then go right ahead. But, understand this… the left’s accusation of “racists” toward us actually says far more about their own insecurity, their own inability to maintain a connection with reality, and their need to diminish another human being’s dignity and worth in order to feed their own desperate need for fulfillment and to squelch their own deep seated inferiority complex.

What a shame. You would have thought they would have grown up by now, and left the childish name calling on the kindergarten playground. But, there are those among us who simply cannot grow up. And it shows.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

How do you know when a Green—hardcore environmentalist—is lying to you? When his lips are moving. Okay, it’s a cliché used in other cases as well, but it is especially true when the latest absurd claim comes flying at you courtesy of the mainstream media.

Take nuclear energy as an example. A new survey by Bisconti Research, taken since one conducted in April, revealed “a record-high 74% of Americans favor nuclear energy, with only 24% opposed.” That’s a big change in just five months and no doubt has a lot to do with the growing public realization that America will have an energy crisis on its hands if it does not permit new plants to be built.

“The unprecedented levels of support for nuclear energy found in this survey,” said Ann Bisconti, “can be attributed to growing concerns about energy and focus on energy alternatives.” There are few real alternatives. At present, coal-fired plants generate just over 50% of electricity and nuclear represents about 20%. The rest is made up by hydroelectric, and some natural gas. The much touted “clean” energy sources, solar and wind, only 1%.

The Greens have a long history of being opposed to nuclear energy, claiming it is too dangerous and there’s no place to put the spent rods. However, they have also been shouting about the need for “clean” energy that does not emit “greenhouse gases.” Nuclear does not do that. It emits water vapor in the form of steam and water vapor is a key element of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Moreover, there hasn’t been an accident since the problem encountered by Three Mile Island in 1979. Even then, no one was harmed. The technology since then has ensured that the nuclear energy industry is astonishingly safe.

There’s a billion dollar facility, Yucca Mountain, waiting to receive nuclear waste, but the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, (D-NV) refuses to allow it to begin operation. The facility recently received clearance from the Environmental Protection Agency for meeting a stringent radiation protection standard. You would get more radiation from a CAT scan than Yucca Mountain.

So, while Greens tout wind and solar, two of the least effective and reliable ways to provide for the nation’s energy needs, they continue to bad mouth nuclear as a viable alternative. Its popularity is such that developing nations all over the world are seeking to build their own nuclear plants. India, for example, is embarked on an ambitious program.

Greens also are actively opposing nuclear energy. Friends of the Earth, a leading environment organization, is engaged in program to denigrate nuclear energy, calling Yucca Mountain “a false solution that would run trains full of toxic nuclear waste through neighborhoods like yours.” This ignores the fact that all manner of toxic materials move around the nation every day for manufacturing and other purposes. And they do it safely.

So what do the Greens want? It’s more like what they don’t want. They don’t want more electricity for Americans no matter what generates it.

They are opposed to all expansion and development even as the population continues to grow. That’s why you will find Greens trying to stop any form of development, whether it’s more land use for housing or more energy for electricity to light and heat it. That’s why they are against any exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas and against coal.

They are against the timber industry, too, and the production and consumption of meat, claiming that raising livestock contributes to global warming.

There is no global warming. The Earth is in a new cooling cycle, but that doesn’t slow the deluge of lies.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

The Last Days of America!By J.D Longstreet************************************“What Voters Need To Know”

Steve Baldwin has written a comprehensive piece on what American Voters need to know before going to the polls in November. If you plan to vote then you NEED to read Mr. Ballwin’s eye-opening article. If you do not plan to vote, then you need to read Mr. Baldwin’s article… then go vote.“What Voters Need To Know” will make those tiny little hairs on the back of your neck stand straight up. If you recall this writer’s (Longstreet) prediction of dark days ahead for America, a few days ago, then Mr. Baldwin will show you some of the things that are likely to happen in those dark days and why they will happen. It is a truly frightening look into what now appears to be a certain future for America. Yet, like lemmings, Americans are following the pied piper of the Democratic Party straight to hell.

We urge you to read Mr. Baldwin’s article: What Voters Need To Know right now. You’ll find it at:

After reading this spellbinding look into Obama’s America we urge you to pass it on to friends and family members. Ask them to read it and pass it on.

Americans have a front row seat to watch the greatest country on earth self-destruct right before our eyes. Like watching a slow motion train wreck, or an airliner, laden with passengers, spiraling into the ground from 30,000 feet, we can’t tear our eyes away. This is truly history in the making… the self-destruction of a whole country... the implosion of a government by the people, falling victim to the ignorance of those same people and dying without a struggle.

These are the last days of America, writ large, for all to see. So, Americans, eat, drink, and make merry, for tomorrow is not coming.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Question: Who said the following, Karl Marx or Barack Obama? “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” The answer is… BOTH. Well, Marx DID say it a little differently. Marx said it this way: “ From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Shocking? No, at least not to those of us who have been paying attention to the Obama Campaign. What was shocking, well, maybe not SHOCKING, but “TELLING” was the fact that so many people WERE shocked by Mr. Obama’s utterance to a plumber named “Joe” a few days ago.

In the words of Karl Marx (above), ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’ That, dear reader, is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Haven’t read the Communist Manifesto? You should. It will be a fantastic eye-opener if you are still undecided about whom you will vote for. You’ll find it at:

“…..But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.”…. (From the Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels 1848

For another view of the type socialism Mr. Obama is preaching let us turn to one Mr. Winston Churchill. He said this: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”There is an excellent article at The Chistian Science Monitor on this very subject. You’ll find it at:

Then, again in 1945 Winston Churchill said this about “socialism” in a broadcast he made during the election campaign broadcast he made just before the General Election that year. Mr. Churchill said this: “…. . . a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. "

In the book “The Downing Street Years” the conservative Brit, Magaret Thatcher, Former Prime Minister, believed that there was no fairer trial for socialism than in Britain in the mid-20th century, and it has been conclusively proved to be a failure.Now… considering all this, we, here in America, are seriously considering switching from freedom and capitalism to slavery and socialism??? Even the thought, itself is troubling. The choice between the two candidates for President is so clear that it cannot be confused. And yet, we have Americans who claim to be “undecided”. How can that be? The choice is clear: freedom or slavery.

The moment for indecision has long since passed. It is time now to make a commitment to see that America is preserved as the home of the free. There are no second chances or “do overs”. This election is for “keeps’. We have to get it right the first time.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

About Those American Flag Lapel Pins….By J. D. Longstreet****************************

In the spirit of full disclosure allow me to say, right up front that I have several American flag lapel pins. Some are singles, and some are crossed with the NC state flag, etc. When I am not wearing the Sons of Confederate Veterans Lapel pin, I will have either my American Legion pin, or my American flag pin on my lapel. Sometimes I will wear the American Flag pen on my left lapel, nearest my heart and at the same time, the Third National Flag of the Confederacy on my right lapel.

Yes, I AM making a statement with the wearing of those lapel pins. I am saying, loud and clear, the things those pins represent are things that are very important to me. It is an overt expression of my love and my caring for those things, those principles, which are the foundation of the countries, and the organizations, those tiny little lapel pins represent.

I will readily admit to being a nationalist. I think my country, the USA, is the best nation on the face of the earth. You may disagree. That is certainly your prerogative. But, do not expect me to change my mind. My country makes mistakes. It blunders sometimes. But… and you know what is coming… it is still my country!

As an American citizen, I am free to change that. I can denounce my citizenship and become a citizen of another country, if I wish. I DON’T wish. Some do.

Let’s be clear about something: I am not ashamed of my country. From time to time I am ashamed of some of my country’s leaders… but never my country. Just because I am ashamed of the actions and the behavior of some of my country’s leaders is no reason for me to remove, or not wear, an American Flag lapel pin. You see… that makes a statement, too. It says, again, loud and clear, that I am ashamed of my country. I won’t do that.

Back in the 1950’s I took an oath, as I was sworn in to the Army, to defend this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. It is essentially the same oath the President of the United States swears when he is sworn into office. I don’t recall there being an expiration date on that oath. I’m proud of that. I wasn’t much of a soldier, but I had committed what there was of me to the service of my country. I have never regretted that.

We have a nation of leaders these days that have never worn the uniform of their country. They have never crawled in the mud with the enemy popping off 7.62 rounds over their heads, or heard the rattle of a machine gun, or fully automatic assault rifle, in the dark and watched the tracers skimming the service of the earth searching for a target in the blackness of night. They have never felt the stark terror of combat that dries your throat and mouth until your tongue is sticking to the roof of your mouth and you could not spit if your life depended upon it. And they know absolutely nothing of the courage and fortitude it takes to overcome all that and force your mind and your body to work and do the job you were trained for until the enemy is vanquished or you are dead. They have no clue! Yet, today we make these people our leaders and even the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.

You see, those of us who have made the commitment have paid for the right to question the patriotism of a person who refuses to wear a simple American Flag lapel pin near his heart to announce to the world, “I Love My Country”. A person who cannot speak or understand one single word of English will understand exactly what that simple little lapel pin is saying! That is one HELL of a statement. It is a powerful declaration!

Now, it seems to me, when a person is a candidate for President of the United States of America, which carries the title and the duties of the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, he should wear that American flag lapel pin, if for no other reason than respect for the men and women who WILL go in his place, in his name, to fight, bleed, and die, on the battlefields where HE sends them. Is that asking too much?

Apparently it is, these days.

To even ask me to support such a candidate insults me.

Now, I understand some of you don’t wear lapel pins of any kind… anytime. That’s fine. I respect that. Not a problem. I’m just saying that IF you DO, and you choose NOT TO WEAR a simple American Flag lapel pin and you just HAPPEN to be a candidate for President of the United States of America… well… that tells me all I need to know about you.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

If Barack Obama is elected, the Internal Revenue Service had better double its workforce because the amount of cheating on tax returns will rival Italy’s.

The scariest thing about the final debate between the candidates is that both appear to be utterly oblivious to the way the Stock Market dropped 700 points on Wednesday after a brief rally the day before.

Hearing either candidate talk about spending billions to fix this or that was surreal. I don’t even know how deep in debt the nation is at this writing, but I am of the view that we don’t have billions to “fix” education, health care, or anything else. Of course, John McCain did talk about taking an axe to the budget and Barack Obama did talk about using a scalpel, but who’s kidding who here?

Any budget cutting would be an improvement over the last eight years of George W. Bush’s failure to veto any spending bill Congress, controlled by Republicans until 2006, sent his way. Only after a Democrat epiphany did W actually wield the veto in the name of fiscal prudence. By then it was too late and talk of $700 billion bailouts filled the air.

It is essential to remember that the current crisis is entirely the creation of Democrats. Starting with Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, exacerbated by Jimmy Carter’s and Bill Clinton’s exploitation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, ignored by congressional oversight, the Democrats own this one.

It’s no comfort that Speaker Nancy Pelosi cannot wait to get the House to enact a bushel of new spending bills. The Senate historically has been a break on the short-term Representatives (two years versus the Senate’s six year terms) who, when not devoting most of their day raising money for reelection, spend the rest of it on, well, spending the public treasury for various pet projects and special interests.

Congress seems to exist in some parallel universe that has no connection to the rest of the nation. Its disconnect can be seen in the way, since Jimmy Carter was in office, Congress has actively worked against any exploration or extraction of the nation’s oil, natural gas, and coal reserves. It imposed “windfall taxes” and other restrictions until now there are only three oil companies of any size, mostly due to mergers. Now Congress apparently hates coal, too.

Then there was the creation of the Department of Education, contrary to the Constitution that excludes federal involvement by not mentioning it. It effectively has nationalized the education system with a one-size-fits-all policy that totally ignores the fact that different children in different places learn at different rates. The failure of urban schools has less to do with the enormous amounts of money spent per pupil than the crime-infested, jobless streets they must walk to get to school. It’s not like their parents don’t want better schools. They do. The grip of the teacher’s unions makes that nearly impossible.

I could list other government programs, but the point is they all cost a lot of money and a lot of that money is just totally wasted. For example, the government has a host of idiotic programs involving “climate change” when no government on Earth can do a thing about the climate. Likewise, the only reason to maintain a “space” program is to hoist spy and communications satellites into position. Explore Mars? Are you kidding me?

John McCain and the Republicans are right about cutting taxes. If that doesn’t happen, this Recession I assume we’re in, will turn into a full-fledged Depression just like 1929. At that point, we won’t be able to borrow money from China, Japan, and elsewhere. At that point, it won’t matter who’s in Congress or the White House because they created the problem.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Should Obama win the election here in America next month, the doors and windows to Israel will slam shut for members of the Obama Administration. See, Israel already knows they cannot trust an Obama administration and they will shut off all avenues of approach for the US… except for those absolutely necessary to maintain a tenuous connection to the American government.

Israel knows it cannot share intelligence with an Obama Administration. Perhaps our most valuable source of intelligence on Iran and the other rogue states in the Middle East will suddenly and completely dry up. Israel is not about to risk valuable Intel gathered by Mossad, and other Israeli intelligence agencies, being, shall we say… “shared” with the… uh… opposition. Israel cannot risk that and they won’t.

I do not mean to imply that Obama is a Muslim. I know I’m going to be accused of that. Let me just say, that it seems the Israelis have made up their minds on that matter. Let me also say…I trust Israel.

Jesse Jackson is out there saying that "decades of putting Israel's interests first" will be over under an Obama Administration. Jackson made those remarks at a World Policy Forum in Evian, France last week. You’ll find an article on that here:http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0(If the line is broken above you may need to copy and past this URL into your browser. We apologize for the inconvenience.)

How do you suppose that made Israel feel? Not charitable toward Obama, I suspect. (Of course, this is the same Jackson who made the remark about altering Obama’s anatomy while near what he (Jackson) thought was a "dead" microphone. As a long time veteran of the broadcast industry, I offer a bit of advice to everyone. When you see a microphone… always assume it is “live”. ALWAYS!)

Now, I have been accused, just a few days ago, of being a “nut job” supporting Israel and waiting for the Rapture. First let me say that I am an old Lutheran. My support of Israel has nothing to do with the Rapture. It has to do with common sense and my parents raising me to look out for the little guy, the underdog, especially if that underdog is on my side. Add to that the fact that I don’t hate Jews and well, I suppose that makes me some sort of thoroughbred bigot. I’ll leave it to those of you who feel you must have someone to hate in order to feel some sense of self-worth to decide what pigeonhole to put me in. Frankly, I don’t care.

As one who does not favor a Palestinian state… at all, I tend to look with disfavor on those in the US government who do. I never supported the current administration’s aims toward establishing a Palestinian state and I certainly will not support any future President’s attempts to do the same thing whether republican or democrat.

Obama’s insistence that he will “talk” with Iran about abandoning their drive toward development of an Atomic Bomb is chilling to say the least. It will accomplish nothing good, and, at the same time, any “official” talks with Iran will only elevate Iran in the eyes of it’s supporters and encourage other rogue states to follow the same route Iran is following today.

Israel would be well advised, it seems to me, to go ahead, at the earliest possible moment (certainly before Obama takes office should he win the election) and bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities with a time window for follow-up raids as necessary. Make no mistake about it…the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities is a must. It now appears that Israel is the only country with the “stones” to take on the task, and they must be prepared to do it alone and survive the diplomatic hailstorm that will follow.

Look, if Iran is not stopped we are looking at a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East. Israel has it’s own nuclear arsenal, which it is absolutely prepared to use to ensure it’s survival. The moment Iran fires a nuclear tipped missile in Israel’s direction Iran will be the country that will cease to exist…whether we have an Obama Administration or not.

There is good reason to suspect there will be little if any cooperation between Israel and an Obama Administration. We can only hope Israel has leaders who will dig in their heels and refuse to bow to pressure from a likely Obama Administration to accommodate the demands of the Islamic states surrounding her.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.By J. D. Longstreet*******************************

"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand". From the Bible, Matthew 12:25.

The schism that slices through America today has been widening since the 19th century. Little by little, decade-by-decade, year-by-year it has continued to get ever wider and ever deeper. It has nothing to do with geography. It has nothing to do with slavery… and, yet, it has everything to do with slavery.

What, you say? Didn’t we put the slavery issue to rest with a war in the 1860’s? The truthful answer is NO, we did not. We put to rest the issue of whether or not a man could hold another man in bondage in this country. What we did not put to rest, however, is the question of whether this country’s government could hold its citizens in bondage.

The founders of this country intended to set up a government with very little power. They intended the government to have only the power the citizens allowed it to have. Almost instantly the power struggle began between those who wanted a strong central government and those who wanted strong states and a weak central government. After all, it was The States that created the Federal Government… as a utility of the states. Not the other way around. Look it up.

In 1860 there were 33 states in the so-called United States of America. I do mean “so-called” because they were anything but UNITED. By the spring of 1861 thirteen of those states had had enough of being dictated to by a dictatorial federal government wielding powers the constitution did not grant it, so they waved goodbye and took their leave of the United States. They created a country of their own with a constitution (mostly copied from the original constitution of the US) and they became a separate country.

A few Americans today actually know what caused that split. A handful of Americans understand what the ensuing war was fought about

A few million Americans still feel the sting of being forced, at the point of a government bayonet, to be a part of a country their ancestors had forsaken in order to set up a government in the image of the government the Founding Fathers of America had given the United States.

A few million Americans who either live in, or hail from, the only portion of this country to ever be invaded, conquered, and occupied by a foreign power, understand what is happening in America today, not because we learned it in school, no… because we learned it from the stories our families have handed down from generation to generation and from our own research into what happened to a country which had, less than a hundred years before, won it’s Independence from the Mother Country. We are scattered all over America today. We see where America is headed… and we fear for our fellow Americans because they/we are not ready for the cost of what is about to happen to her. None of us are. What America is facing, in the next few years, will make the American Civil War seem like a Sunday School picnic.

Yes, I am referring to SLAVERY. Voluntary slavery to begin with… then involuntary slavery… when it is then too late. The socially accepted word for it these days is… SOCIALISM.

In just a few days Americans will go to the polls to exercise a right granted them by their states… not the federal government. The issue we will be voting for, or against, is slavery. Whether America should stay free, or whether America should give up the freedom so many have fought, bled, and died for, and assume the yoke and chains of slavery under socialism.

Make no mistake. SOCIALISM IS SLAVERY. Under socialism you will give up all your rights… all your freedom for security guaranteed by the Central Government. Believe me, if you think democracy is expensive; wait ‘til you have to pay for all those FREE programs.

All my instincts tell me that Americans are willing to give up everything for the promise of security. Of all things “un-American”… that is the MOST un-American. But, that is what I expect to happen on Election Day.

Do not expect the half of the country who stands solidly against socialism to go along, quietly, into the self inflicted slavery of this hell-spawned form of government we call socialism.

If the country votes in favor of socialism, on November 4th, all bets are off. The word “United” can be dropped from the country’s name. The country will be torn in two. And there will be no compromise. It cannot be healed, ever, again. Two peoples, this diametrically opposed, cannot share the same space. Only the most naive among us cannot understand where this argument over how we are to be governed will eventually wind up. Americans have been there before. More Americans died in the first American Civil War than in all the wars in which America has fought since her founding. And today, at least half of this country is deadly in earnest about their love of freedom and are willing to sacrifice, as their forefathers did, to preserve it.

Yes, we are in dangerous times. Extremely dangerous. If you have not taken the time to consider, seriously, how you will vote then may we suggest you do so, and do so prayerfully.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

I find it remarkable that so little attention has been paid to the role of race in the 2008 election, especially since, for the first time in the nation’s history, one of the parties has nominated a man who, though biracial, identifies himself as Afro-American or Black.

Throughout most of America’s elections, race was a factor, going all the way back to the way opponents of Thomas Jefferson spread rumors of a relationship between him and his slave, Sally Hemmings. Turned out the rumors were true, but Jefferson became our third president anyway.

Slavery, a racial issue, would eventually lead to a rupture among the states, much as the Founding Fathers had feared when they created the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederacy. A Civil War would be fought to settle the matter. What followed was a century of suppression of blacks and a resistance, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that would erupt in the 1960s.

A lot of people, following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, concluded that, at last, America had put the issue of race and bias behind it. Not so. The vast majority of those in poverty today are descendents of those Black Americans who were granted a further layer of protection of their constitutional rights in the 1960s.

Add to them a whole new layer of society in the form of a huge influx of illegal aliens, primarily Mexicans and those of Hispanic descent, some of whom were granted citizenship via an amnesty in 1986. A second effort to provide amnesty to an estimated twelve million illegal aliens was defeated in 2006 due to a massive public outcry.

In a new book, “Segregation: The Rising Costs for America”, its authors argue that, “By the middle of this century, today’s minorities will constitute half of the U.S. population and that fast-growing population is disproportionately impoverished, ill-housed, poorly educated, and tenuously linked to labor markets.”

The book was published just as the financial system of the nation crashed, due almost entirely to laws that required mortgage loans, called sub-prime, be made to minorities in order that they be able to live in homes that it turns out they could not afford. Thus, a liberal program based on the view that the poor have a “right” to live beyond their means has created a crisis that has destroyed several banks and investment firms, and imperiled one of the nation’s largest insurance firms. Much of the value of stocks has been lost as well.

This is a financial crisis that is the direct result of a foolish notion that was entirely rooted in race. The problems associated with crime in America are largely rooted in race and the failure to stem the tide of illegal aliens. The nation’s jails are filled with minorities. The costs are measured in the billions.

It is one thing to open doors to opportunity. It is quite another to get people to walk through them. In the case of the illegal aliens, even the fences at the border could not keep them out and, once here, made them instant criminals breaking our laws.

One man has risen to challenge for the highest position in the land. He has been received by cheering throngs. And he is indisputably Black.

I think it would be a great mistake to think that Barack Obama’s racial identity would contribute to a reduction in any of the social problems afflicting America’s Black community. If anything, a Democrat controlled Congress is likely to repeat the same kinds of mistakes that produced the financial crisis.

Indeed, just as politicians used race in former times to influence the outcome of an election, Obama is the consummate politician and will do the same. If anything, Obama’s race, if he is elected, could lead to unrealistic expectations and possibly even social unrest.

Some may vote for him out of “white guilt” over offenses done to Blacks in a previous era, but no one living today ever owned a slave. Those whites who grew up in the segregated South, as often as not will tell you they were as trapped in its constrictions as Blacks. Most are glad to see the Jim Crow era gone.

But in countless ways segregation is not gone and it is practiced every day on a purely voluntary basis. Watch how students segregate themselves by race in a high school cafeteria. Watch how their parents segregate themselves by race when they attend church on Sunday. Watch how the two races tend to congregate in largely separate sections of a community.

Segregation or human nature? Discrimination or the choice of people to live among those who share their race, their heritage, their values, their culture? There’s a reason one can visit San Francisco’s or New York’s famed China Towns. Depending on where you live, tides of Russians, Indians, and of course Hispanics have created their own “towns.”

Remember, too, that even in Congress, there is a Black Caucus.

Race will surely be a factor in the 2008 election. It will be a factor long after.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Yep! By all accounts that is exactly what happened. It happened on Friday of last week at a town hall style gathering when McCain tried to calm a man concerned about raising his child with Obama as President. McCain is reported to have said that Barack Obama “… is a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States." It was at about this point in the McCain Campaign when the McCain train went completely off the rails it was only partially on up to that point.

I have been monitoring the blogoshere since that happened and I must tell you, if you don’t already know, those remarks, in support of Mr. Obama, began a firestorm of dissent against Mr. McCain among his own reluctant supporters.

Conservatives who had made their minds up to hold their noses and vote for McCain, go home and take a shower, are now re-evaluating that decision and many are walking away from McCain… in droves. It is not what one could describe as a trickle… it is more like a dam burst. To say there has been a backlash against McCain would be the understatement of the year.

For conservatives, making the decision to go against their conscious and support McCain was a heart-rending exercise. Some of us have simply refused to do it from the very beginning, myself included. I would not even entertain the notion of supporting McCain. But for a few weeks it appeared that most republican conservatives had decided to do just that in order to keep a man, they honestly believe is a socialist, out of the White House.

Appointments to the US Supreme Court are extremely high on the list of concerns for conservatives and that was one of the arguments employed to persuade conservatives to support McCain. But now, conservatives are asking themselves, what guarantees do they have that McCain WOULD appoint conservative nominees to fill the coming vacancies n the SCOTUS? The honest answer is NONE! What about moderate nominees? The answer is the same. Remember, A President McCain would likely have a democrat controlled Senate for at least two years.

McCain is a lot of things… but he is not conservative. So, please do not insult conservatives by referring to him as such.

Mr. McCain’s show of support for Obama last week was the last straw for many conservative voters. In fact conservative hardliners consider it “the straw that broke the camel’s back”. Already upset at being pressured, by fellow republicans, regaling them with: “a refusal to vote for McCain is a vote for Obama”, many rightwing conservatives have simply left the field. They can no longer be counted as probable voters for McCain. They’re going to “stay home.”

This conservative will be voting on Election Day. I won’t be voting for McCain, however. I will write in the name of a conservative I believe the leading lights in the GOP rejected in their ill-advised attempt to redefine conservatism and, in so doing, change the face of the Republican Party. Oh, in the end, they will have accomplished something. Unfortunately, for the country, they will have ushered in European style socialism and become accomplices in the death of representative democracy and capitalism in America.

About Me

J. D. Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in “America First”.